The University of Southern California has cancelled a scheduled commencement speech by Asna Tabassum, citing unnamed security concerns after her selection as valedictorian was met with a wave of online attacks directed at her pro-Palestinian views.
“I am not surprised by those who attempt to propagate hatred. I am surprised that my own university - my home for four years - has abandoned me,” Tabassum said in a statement shared online.
On 6 April, USC announced that Tabassum was selected as valedictorian, a student with the highest academic achievements in her year, for the graduating class of 2024.
After the announcement was published on social media, Tabassum began receiving online attacks from an account named, “We Are Tov”, a group that describes itself as “dedicated to combating antisemitism”.
The university released a statement on Monday, saying that Tabassum would retain her position as valedictorian, but would not be allowed to give her commencement speech. The school said that the move was made to maintain safety on campus.
While I fully support not only this student’s right to speak as the valedictorian but also her position, I want to ask: if the university genuinely cannot provide a secure environment for the commencement event, if they very well know it could erupt into pandemonium where people could get hurt (or worse), what choice do they have when they have a duty to act responsibly and to keep everyone safe?
This is a shitty situation, but I find it difficult to blame the school here, at least, entirely.
It’s not that difficult to blame the school.
Why can’t they provide a secure environment? Why can’t they defend one student giving one speech on one day? She doesn’t seem to be conceding ground to terrorists, why should the school?
Do they think some of the students might be terrorists? Some of their families attending graduation? It will be a ticketed event within their facilities. Are they saying that their campus is filled with terrorists?
only if you ignore everything i just said
you seem to have answered you own questions
And your solution is to let the terrorists win?
You present a false dichotomy, and on that basis, I reject the statement
You were the one clearly implying that they had no choice but to cancel it. The other poster is clearly implying that cancelling the speech is letting the terrorists win.
If it’s a false dichotomy, it’s yours.
Wrong. Since she can still give the speech a number of other ways, cancelling the public speech ≠ “letting the terroists win” unless you believe the terrorist’s goals are to make you mad— which everyone here seems to believe.
Silencing her was the goal, and she still has many other means to deliver her speech.
Sorry, wasn’t clear. Your false dichotomy is that they either ban the speech, or put thousands of people at risk. They’ve shown the ability to secure for higher profile and higher risk things.
But this argue is bizarre. By bowing to terrorists and censoring her from giving the speech there, they are absolutely letting the terrorists dictate their policy (i.e. win). The fact that she can give the speech elsewhere doesn’t change this. It’s like saying that if they ban speech in Idaho, it’s not really a loss of free speech because they can go to New York and talk. It’s absolutely still censorship.
Nobody’s speech is banned— so you can stop pushing that lie. She simply can’t deliver it at one particular live event. She can still deliver it any number of other ways that won’t endanger the lives of others.
And now you’ve introduced the false equivalence of comparing her to some high profile speaker. She isn’t.
Your entire argument is based on logical fallacies and lies.
Do it remotely. Put it on YouTube.
the student can still do that, can’t she?
Yes.
then she certainly should
Anyone can put up a YouTube video, it’s not going to be watched by 65,000 people or recorded and made available through the school. The platform your speaking from matters. That’s the privilege of being valedictorian.
sure, if just anyone did it. but this student has gotten a lot of press attention and has a lot of fans. there’s plenty she can do to spread her message-- plenty that you’re willing to ignore just to continue your narrative that she’s somehow been gagged and silenced when she hasn’t.
and she’s the USC valedictorian. don’t underestimate her.
but if you’re so willing to sacrifice the lives of strangers for attention and views, then don’t then claim at the same time that you care about innocent lives being lost-- it’s scoring a “win” that you care about, not doing the right thing or being reasonable.
LOL, my “narrative”. Just an amazing failure of self-reflection.
You’re bending over backward to ignore the obvious: that this is a pretense for a political/financial decision in an environment when universities who haven’t been sufficiently pro-Israel have had threats from donors and been hauled in front of Congress and organizations and individuals in academia making pro-Palestinian statements have been disbanded or muzzled. Your stance on this is at best woefully naïve and at worst intentionally dedicated to FUD via concerns about mass casualties from undefined terrorists and nonsensical suggestions that making a YouTube video is a substitution for a major public speaking event. That you wrote that as a serious alternative kind of reveals how you’re not just trying to see all sides.
Since you’re obviously not willing to have a conversation in good faith, and can only speak in preposterous hyperbole ignoring all reason so you can sacrifice the safety of a bunch of strangers to hear a speech that could safely be delivered virtually, I’m just going to ignore you now.
If you actually cared about anyone’s life, as you so very obviously falsely claim, you wouldn’t be risking them in this way for such a foolish endeavor.
I gave you good faith. Until “put up a YouTube video”. After that you don’t deserve further faith. That’s not an endless well that you can draw on while making obviously bad faith suggestions.
The school did nothing to stop the online hate campaign against her. They just censored her from speaking. I don’t see how this is supposed to provide anyone with safety. It’s just an excuse they use to censor her.
how is the school supposed to control the internet?
and the student can still speak, just not at a school-hosted event that puts possibly thousands of people at risk. you’re acting like the school put a gag around her mouth. they didn’t.
How is censoring this student from giving a speech “providing a secure environment”? Using safety as an excuse for censorship is very common. Especially in the case for israel.
If this student was truly a target she would need to get a bodyguard 24/7. Not her speech cancelled.
ahem, i repeat:
How exactly are thousands of people put at risk? Is israel going to drone strike the event?
The school very much censored her speech which she has won the right to give.
This is a comment from the student herself refuting these vague “safety concerns”:
now i’m pretty sure you’re just trolling.
Sorry what?
It’s a projection. The poster’s ever shifting excuse as to why this okay, when it inevitably falls apart, is always met with some kind of empty accusation about it’s faults (false dichotomy, false equivalency, and now, you’re trolling).
It can. They’ve hosted much more controversial and high profile figures before without danger and the speaker and the public have not been given any indication there’s even a credible threat. It’s not remotely an impossible task, it’s just an excuse.
but a student isn’t the President or some visiting foreign dignitary, etc. who was invited because they are controvertial. The school isn’t going to go to all of that trouble when the risk isn’t worth it-- especially when alternatives are availible.
The school had Obama in the crowd. He wasn’t invited to speak, he was just an attendee. And they hosted Milo Yiannopoulos because a campus student club invited him. That wasn’t a university solicited event that was “worth it” and the alternative of “just don’t have him” would have been way less intrusive than changing how commencement ceremonies run.
There just isn’t an unmanageable risk. And their annual budget is $7.4 BILLION dollars, so if there was a legit risk paying for security would be a rounding error. It’s a patently absurd excuse.
These comparisons are obvious false equivalences for reasons already stated.
I think you’re making a reasonable point about keeping people safe. I can see the merit, but I don’t like the school’s choice because a) it feels like letting the bullies win and b) there’s a national context of failing to protect or support pro-Palestinian voices or even suppressing them. This girl was specifically targeted for harassment and there’s no mention that USC tried to intervene on her behalf. Now, whether it’s actually a security or political concern, she won’t be allowed to speak as valedictorian because she’s Palestinian and pro-Palestine.
Also, I won’t pretend that I’m an expert on speaker security, but there definitely are other controversial figures that are allowed to speak at public events including at universities. USC is a major educational organization and should have the resources to provide safeguards. It doesn’t sound like they’re even going to try, and (just my opinion from context) I suspect the reasons to be political with their excuse being a convenient lie.
to your first point:
yes, it does, and that sucks. but i just don’t see how it’s reasonable to risk the lives of possibly thousands of attendees for the sake of a graduation speech.
secondly:
that very well may be, and i don’t really know enough to comment about it. others have mentioned this, and, if so, that really is shitty. the school really ought to have done more to protect her and take action against those who have threatened her, as well as considered making this an online/virtual speech, as has also been suggested by others.
lastly:
given that this is a graduation speech by a student, not a major speaking engagement by, say, a world leader or other major social/political figure that might attract national/global attention and, perhaps, a gigantic -paying - crowd, i wouldn’t expect any university to shell out the big bucks for a major security presence beyond standard campus safety officers. but i see your point.
one last thing…
i think it’s more likely that they just don’t want the trouble of dealing with any of it and the potential liabilities, but it could easily be a mix of both.
You’re essentially agreeing with everyone here: they don’t want to deal with it, for whatever reason. It’s not that they can’t (which is the reason they’ve given) it’s that they don’t want to.
And that’s seemingly everyone’s problem here. Which begs the question: why? This is their graduation ceremony. It’s tradition that the valedictorian give a speech. If they can secure it, as they’ve proven multiple times in the past of being capable of doing, then there is some other reason why they aren’t doing it.
I think any reasonable person not blinded by their own bias in this case can see why: the pro-israeli bloc in this country is many orders of magnitude more powerful than the pro-palenstinian bloc. It’s a calculated economic/political position…take the heat from a small group of passionate people for a short while, or anger a large powerful group.
“Safety” is just a good excuse that allows them to mask the real reason. As we all agree, including you, that they are perfectly capable of actually securing it.
It’s not my opinion, but it’s fair, your points are logical, and I have no reason to believe you are motivated by anything unethical :) We’ve just come to different conclusions about this one specific event, which is A-OK in my books. I don’t even agree all the time with the people I agree with the most. For what it’s worth I’ve given you upvotes both times for making sense.
i appreciate that.
It’s not letting the bullies win.
It’s letting the terrorists win